Nice people thread part 7 - a thread in its prime

aliasojo

I've gone off Prof Cox tbh. I posted this on another thread..


I watch the Prof a fair bit and although I do quite like him, I think he's also got a bit of an unpleasant judgemental thing going on.

He seems to comment quite a lot on types of people, saying things like if you enjoy watching soaps then turn over now because you wont understand this (previous program) and how people with tattoos on their bottoms wouldn't get this etc etc.

I didn't pick up on it at first, it's only since I've started watching more often that I've become aware just how many times he'll say something like this, I suppose under the guise of 'humour'.

He's clearly very intelligent and can be amusing at times so why be disparaging too? It's not particularly nice and it puts me off listening to him.

I don't think he's alone though, I've often thought that the more intelligent a person was, the less able they were to empathise. That's a whole other subject though. ...

lostinrates

Nikkster wrote: »

I've been watching his biology programme too, its quite enjoyable and I think he presents it well but I too was a bit confused as to why a physicist was trying to be a biologist. And I noted the microscope/ telescope thing too. (Although that is a bit rich from me as I am more of a jack of all sciences, master of none - well doctor of none, I technically am twice a Master of Science)

I think the key is probably that he is a very good science communicator, and the programme has a good team of biologists behind him. I am probably wrong but I think his Chair is for science communication rather than cosmology?

I am sure there are other biologists who good. We need more role models, not keeping the pool so small that it's as if a biologist could not do it!

Spirit_2

zagubov wrote: »

.


I could have done the show for a considerable discount.

I would have watched you Zag.

Nikkster

lostinrates wrote: »

I am sure there are other biologists who good. We need more role models, not keeping the pool so small that it's as if a biologist could not do it!

Oh yes, I'm sure there must be a biologist somewhere in the UK who is just as good at the science communication bit. It's a shame that we only have 'room' for a few scientists on tv (e.g. Brian Cox being referred to as the new David Attenborough... does it have to be a one-in-one-out arrangement?!).

Nikkster

Spirit wrote: »

I would have watched you Zag.

Me too. And not just because you are a Nice Person!

silvercar

DS1 did some work (unpaid) for his professor while he was at uni. He was given a lovely reference and the professor offered to be a referee on future job applications. Now that time has come and DS1 gets back in touch, through the uni, only to find that the professor has been dismissed for gross misconduct and no-one is in touch with him. So the dilemma is whether he should use the reference now or not? (Reference was supplied at the time, "to whom it may concern...."

Spirit_2

silvercar wrote: »

DS1 did some work (unpaid) for his professor while he was at uni. He was given a lovely reference and the professor offered to be a referee on future job applications. Now that time has come and DS1 gets back in touch, through the uni, only to find that the professor has been dismissed for gross misconduct and no-one is in touch with him. So the dilemma is whether he should use the reference now or not? (Reference was supplied at the time, "to whom it may concern...."

Depends on the nature of the job. A serious professional job will usually want a current reference not an old one and employers write/speak directly to/with the referee to get it. Frauds on refs provided by applicants are easy:
To whom it may concern. Silvercar Junior was absolutely super . I commend him to you. Professor Woodentop Emeritus Professor of Neuropathology

If it is not a career post they may accept the copy he has.

If the Professor was well known in the field then your son may not want the ignominy of a referee of ill repute.

I would find another

LydiaJ

Spirit wrote: »

michaels wrote: »

DW can't get that this is the right thing as her religious beliefs block her from understanding right from wrong.

I am confused by this and really do not know what you mean.

I think he means that he regards gay marriage as self-evidently right, so that if his wife disagrees on religious grounds then she must be being blinded from seeing something that is so obvious to him. (I myself don't think it's quite as clear cut as he thinks it is.)

bugslet wrote: »

A civil partnership does not offer all the legal and financial options that marriage does. If you fall ill abroad, under a civil partnrship you don't ahve the rights that a married couple do and from a financial perspective, you don't have access to your 'spouse's' pension.

Really? I've no idea about the falling ill abroad thing, but the pension thing in this country I do know at least a tiny bit about. When I claimed my widow's pension from LNE's pension scheme, every piece of paper I saw said "spouse or civil partner". I thought the whole point of civil partnerships were that they were supposed to give gay couples exactly the same rights to things like pensions as straight couples have. Is that really not the case?

aliasojo wrote: »

Hi guys....any room for a disillusioned person who really needs to be amongst nice people right now?

I like mushrooms. :whistle:

Welcome aliasojo. :hello:

Are you a scientist of any kind?

zagubov

Gay marriage. Not my concern. Only really of the concern of the people who seek it and IMHO nobody else's business at all. Can't see why it's anybody's business to object to it

Spirit wrote: »

Depends on the nature of the job. A serious professional job will usually want a current reference not an old one and employers write/speak directly to/with the referee to get it. Frauds on refs provided by applicants are easy:
To whom it may concern. Silvercar Junior was absolutely super . I commend him to you. Professor Woodentop Emeritus Professor of Neuropathology

If it is not a career post they may accept the copy he has.

If the Professor was well known in the field then your son may not want the ignominy of a referee of ill repute.

I would find another

I agree. If the reference is specially relevant to the post he's applying for then the more likely it is they'll be aware of the referee's fall from grace. Sod's law I'm afraid.

Better if he gets another.:)

LydiaJ

vivatifosi wrote: »

My view is that as long as there is a clear line between religion and marriage which underlines in big red letters that any church/synagogue/mosque whatever has a right to choose not to marry people I don't have an issue with it.

I must admit this is my major concern with it. I'm not at all convinced that any safeguards of this kind will stand up for very long against a determined attack by activists armed with equality legislation, and I do not want to see vicars/priests/rabbis/imams in trouble with the law for following their consciences and refusing to marry gay people. It seems to me to be on quite a different level from the B&B thing - you can tell people that they shouldn't run a B&B unless they're willing to let gay people stay in it, but I don't think you should tell religious organisations that they shouldn't perform weddings unless they're willing to marry gay couples.

I'm also interested in the (possibly rather obscure) issue of how the change in the law will relate to transsexuals. (I have a friend whose partner is trans, so have learnt about the legal issues by way of being supportive to my friend.) If and when the gay marriage thing goes ahead, I understand that some trans people will want to remain married to their partners throughout their gender reassignment process. However, while that's fine for those who have partners who want that, I do feel that spouses (or indeed civil partners) who do not want to remain married (or civilly partnered) to a trans person should continue to be able to get an annulment rather than just a divorce. (It's also looking doubtful that the current provisions for annulment on grounds of non-consummation will be able to remain in place, and the legal definition of adultery is going to need to be redefined, in a way that could get quite complicated, I gather.)